This transcript is produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.

Was it a failure of British intelligence too? 26/9/01

JEREMY PAXMAN:
When I spoke to the Home Secretary
this afternoon, I began by asking him
whether the fact that the 11 of the
terrorists had passed through
London, pointed to a failure of
British intelligence?

DAVID BLUNKETT:
I don't think anyone was
expecting the nature or the
extent of the attack on the
World Trade Center. What
we do know is that there are
immediate lessons to be learnt
both in terms of the international
mobility of the people who are
organising, funding and carrying
out terrorism and therefore
surveillance of those who
passed through and not just those
who stay is going to be absolutely
crucial.

PAXMAN:
Were these 11 under surveillance
when they were here?

BLUNKETT:
As far as I'm aware, they
were not. That doesn't mean to say
that they haven't been some
intelligence about them, but some
of them will have passed through
and some will have actually stayed
over. What we do now know is having
identified these people, because
the very reason we are discussing
this is because we actually do now
have the line, if you like, back to
where they were, that we can track
not only their movements but those
who associated with them. That is
the crucial issue the we cannot
bring bad, sadly, the people who died
on the 11th of September, but we
can make sure that we identify the
network that were behind that.

PAXMAN:
Do you believe there's a support
network in this country?

BLUNKETT:
I believe that we shouldn't rule
it out. As I am with civil
contingencies as well as
protecting ourselves against the
attack with the kind of speculation,
some of it wild and dangerous,
we've got to avoid people being
frightened of what we have in our
midst, because what changed on the
11th September was our awareness and
vigilance and our ability to do something
about it. What didn't change was the
immediate risk that we are at in
this country.

PAXMAN:
Sir John Stevens says this
country is the obvious next
target. Are we currently under
threat?

BLUNKETT:
I discussed this with Sir
John last Friday and I said I
understand given the closeness
that we are with the United States
and the terrorists in terms with
our international political stance
that of course we have to be
vigilant that isn┐t the same thing
as believing there's about to
be an imminent attack in this
country. The reason why I say that,
because I'm not overconfident or
being complacent is precisely because of
what happened on September 11th our
Special Branch and related services
are on bigger alert, have a handle
on the network and are in touch
with their international counterparts
in a way that didn't exist on
September 10th.

PAXMAN:
About specific changes to
legislation, are you looking at the
question of incitement to terrorism,
for example, there are people in
this country who have openly called
for the assassination of General
Musharraf in Pakistan.

BLUNKETT:
We are looking at the nature of
incitement. This goes back a long
way. There's been a number of cases.
Salman Rushdie was one in point,
where people have got very close
indeed to incitement to both the
attack on and the life of the
others. In fact, one of the
individuals concerned in 1991
threatened the life of Margaret
Thatcher, the then Prime Minister.
When it came to the Crown
Prosecution Service examining this,
they had not overstepped the mark
to the point where our existing
laws allowed action. I am examining
the situation. I have to say that
I'm reluctant to act in this
particular instance in terms of
changing the law only because in a
free society the difference between
free speech and incitement to
terrorist action is a very fine
when it applies to those outside
this country. In other words
those who have been making
these statements have been very
careful as to how far they have gone.

PAXMAN:
One other specific measure, it is
quite clear according to the
polling evidence that a majority of
people in this country are now
willing to countenance or actively
in favour of the identity cards.
What it is argument against
introducing them?

BLUNKETT:
We haven't made a decision
because these things need to
be weighed in terms of the cost
and administrative challenge in
terms of implementation. But they
also need to be weighed in terms of
making this not an argument about
identity in terms of picking people
up off the street but of
citizenship and entitlement. So any
card that entitles us to services, of an
indication to citizenship and our
right to be in the country would be
very important and those are the
balance that is we're seeking to
achieve and not ones frightening
people to believing that we are
moving into a policing mythical
state.

PAXMAN:
Are you considering introducing
legislation to change aspects of
the Human Rights Act?
BLINKETT:
We are looking again at the
relationship between securing
common sense, that is if someone is
passing through the country or
comes to the country and we believe
they are a terrorist or there's
evidence of terrorist activity
elsewhere, that they shouldn't be
able the claim asylum and spend
years going through the system.

PAXMAN:
But fast tracking extradition would
reduce British scrutiny?

BLUNKETT:
It would involve concertinaing the
scrutiny to common sense so
that people can't use judicial
review to constantly make a monkey
out of a system that should, of
course, allow due process through
law, of course, ensure that people's
right to appeal a decision is not
taken away, but not use that system
in order to abuse democracy in the
drive to destroy democracy.